( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of both the appeals as these are inter-connected and facts involved in them are almost the same and concern the same premises.

( 2 ) THE facts in S. A. O. 374/78 briefly are that respondents-landlords in the present appeal along with Jagdish Chand Sharma (since dead) first brought an eviction petition No. 667/72 against Sushil Kumar, tenant, in respect of shop bearing No. 29/3943, Rehgarpura, New Delhi-110005 on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14 (l) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 28th November, 1972. In that eviction, petition (No. 667/72) Sushil Kumar asserted himself to be the tenant of the premises @ Rs. 58. 44 p. m. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition and passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act against the appellant-tenant. However, the appellant-tenant complied with that order, availed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act and as such that eviction petition was dismissed.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, again, the appellant Sushil Kumar did not pay the arrears of rent with effect from May, 1973 in spite of service of notice and defaulted in payment of rent for three consecutive months and the landlords filed the second eviction petition No. 668/75 against the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar under Section 14 (l) (a) and 14 (2) of the Act on the ground that the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar had defaulter in payment of rent for three consecutive months and thus he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) again. It was further stated that the contractual tenancy of the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar was terminated by the notice dated 2-9-1972 but in order to obviate any technical objection, he had been served with another notice dated 24-2-75 without prejudice to the earlier notice. In this second eviction petition No. 668/75 the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar filed a written statement alleging mainly that his father Chaman Lal was the tenant in the premises in dispute and he died on 11-1-1965 leaving behind himself, Smt. Pushpa Rani, (widow), Vijay Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar (sons), Smt. Veena Kumari, Sashi, Sangeeta and Anu Radha (daughters) and, that the tenancy of Chaman Lal was not terminated during his life time and, therefore, after his death, all the heirs of Chaman Lal aforementioned became co-tenants by inheritance and as such the second eviction petition No. 668/75 was not maintainable. The respondents-landlords, however, in replication pleaded that after the death of Chamanlal Sushil Kumar only attorned as a tenant and he alone has been paying the rent all these years and in the earlier eviction petition No. 667/72 no such plea of co-tenancy was taken. It was further pleaded that the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar is debarred from raising such a plea of co-tenancy on the principle of constructive resjudicata.

( 4 ) THE Additional Rent Controller held that the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar was in arrears of rent and had committed default in payment of rent for more than three consecutive months due from him despite the service of notice of demand and passed an order of eviction from the premises against the appellant-tenant on 17-7-1976.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 17-7-1976 the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal (RCA 790/76) which was also dismissed by him on 23rd October, 1978 upholding the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal in RCA 790/76 dated 23-10-1978 the appellant-tenant Sushil Kumar has preferred this present second appeal (SAO 374/78 ).

( 7 ) THE facts in S. A. 0. 375/78 in brief are that after the Additional Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on 17-7-1976, the other legal heirs, namely, Pushpa Rani, Veena Kumari. Vijay Kumar Sanjeev Kumar, Shashi Sangeeta and Anu Radha on 24-7-19